Christopher Hitchens' latest book is a collection of pieces he has written over the past year supporting the invasion of Iraq, most of which previously have appeared in Slate. It is not a good book, but it could have been worse. We do not have to read his argument made last summer that the left should support an attack on Iraq because Ariel Sharon opposes it. We do not read his indignant denial that the Bush administration might be manipulating the Iraq issue in order to improve the Republican position for the American mid-term elections. We do not read his castigation of anti-war protesters for ignoring the Rwandan genocide, when in fact in his own vicious polemic against Bill Clinton Rwanda didn't even rate a mention in the index. (Hitchens apparently felt that criticizing Clinton's failure to save hundreds of thousands of lives was less pressing than to use secret and anonymous testimony to denounce him as a rapist.) And finally, we do not get to read Hitchens' attack on Nelson Mandela's opposition to the war, where Hitchens sniffed that Mandela had not really demonstrated "moral courage." As opposed to the high degree of moral courage it takes to write for a journal like "Vanity Fair."

But the evasiveness, slipperiness and moral posturing demonstrated in those examples are unfortunately present in the book. When it suits his purposes, Hitchens claims that Iraq and Al-Qaida or may be working together or are morally complicit with each other. When it suits his purposes, Hitchens claims we needn't worry about any Al-Qaida reaction because it was mortally wounded in Afghanistan. Although he doesn't use the term, he really does seem to believe there is an Axis of evil, not only between Iraq and North Korea, but between Serbia and Al-Qaida(?!). He criticizes those who argue that the Arab-Israel conflict should be dealt with first on the ground that this gives Hussein every chance to disrupt it, as if the converse gave no opportunities for Sharon to delay. With deliberate obtuseness he argues that those who criticizes the poor military record of professional hawks like Rumsfeld and Cheney are arguing that no-one should criticize the military. What is objectionable, of course, is the falseness of those who demand sacrifices of others but never make any themselves, and enthusiastically played Russian Roulette with other people's lives.

You would also not know from this book that Hitchens opposed the use of force against Hussein in 1991. Back then he was willing to give negotiations and sanctions more time. If he was wrong then, and if he was really the model of fearless intellectual honesty he claims to be, perhaps an apology might be in order to Michael Walzer and Martin Peretz. Hitchens also argues that Resolution 1441 essentially gave the United States, or more accutately the Bush administration, the absolute right to decide when Iraq was in violation and the complete right to overthrow Hussein. He praises Bush for going for a second resolution, even though he didn't really need to, (though he makes no mention of the fact that he was only able to convince 3 out of 14 fellow security council members). Let us assume that Hitchens' intrepretation of Resolution 1441 is the right one. If so, it means that both he and Bush are using a blank cheque/Gulf of Tonkin resolution to get what they want. Likewise, there was a time when Hitchens would not have supported Britain or Poland going to war against the majority of their own populations. But in this case, the people there, and indeed most of the rest of the planet, clearly didn't know what they were talking about.

Hitchens speaks of the war in Iraq as one of liberation. If Muslim fundamentalists oppose it, we should welcome their scorn. But if this is a war of liberation where are the Muslim or Arab supporters? Iraqi emigres support the war, so do the Kurds and so does Fouad Ajami. But from Casablanca to Karachi, from Bosnia to Nigeria, where are the others? And if the neo-conservatives cannot bring democracy to the only country in the area they really care about, Israel, why should we believe they will do any better with Iraq? When it suits him Hitchens has a long, if fuzzy memory. Twice Hitchens misdates the Iraqi invasion of Iran, six weeks before the American presidential election of 1980, to 1979 so as to get around Jimmy Carter's criticisms. But there is no mention of how Cheney and Rumsfeld helped to partition Cyprus, or of Wolfowitz's deliberately tendentious work as a member of "Team B" on the Soviet threat. But even though the Republicans were wrong on the Maronite Falange, the USS Vincennes, the Pakistani alliance, the assassin of Bernadotte and the butcher of Kafr Kassem, it would be unpatriotic to be critical now. Regardless of whether one supports the war or not, Hitchens is clearly less skeptical and less informative than his fellow Slate colleagues, or even The New Republic, on such issues as the Al-Qaida link, WMD, the representativeness of Chalabi, or what a post-war Iraq would actually be like. But then amnesia over this book could only help Hitchens' reputation.

While he'd never be mistaken for a Bush sympathizer, Christopher Hitchens in this collection of essays articulates the case for the liberation of Iraq far more eloquently, effectively -- and with an eye for what's really important -- than anyone in the Bush Administration seems able to, even at this late date. While I don't agree with everything in this book, I have a great deal of respect for Hitchens' articulate rationality. It's a refreshing change from both the hysteric emotionalism and nitwit slogans of much of the antiwar crowd, and the chest-thumping militarism of a great deal of the pro-war element.

Especially useful ... or would be if anyone besides Hitchens, me, and the specter of George Orwell still cared about precision and clarity in the language ... is the author's dissection of many of the key terms in this debate, including "terrorism," "multi-" versus "bi-" in lateralism and partisanship, "regime change," "imperialism," and much more. The article titled "'Cowboy' -- Bush challenged by bovines" did, I think, a better job of identifying the political context of President Bush's "Texanness" and its impact on his actions in office than Michael Lind did in all 224 pages of his book "Made in Texas."

In our modern democratic culture, of course, rational thought actually counts for very little -- not when shallow slogans like "No blood for oil!" are considered the last word in persuasive arguments (the author gives that one the deconstruction it deserves too). But for those who do value intelligent political debate, or just simple intellectual honesty, Hitchens' are the pro-war arguments that need to be answered.

I became a Christopher Hitchens fan after reading his take on Bill & Hillary Clinton, NO ONE LEFT TO LIE TO.

This short but potent book traces his impressions and experiences in America and the Middle East as the Iraqi conflict comes to a head.

For anyone open-minded enough to weigh the various opinions to reach their own conclusion on this conflict, I'd definitely recommend this book.

In "The War Over Iraq", Kristol & Kaplan present an excellent case for the use of pre-emptive force not only against Iraq but also against other nations that threaten American ideals and interests, both at home and overseas. They highlight the grievous actions of Hussein's regime and then proceed to detail the shortcomings of both George H.W. Bush's ("narrow realism") and Bill Clinton's ("wishful liberalism") foreign policy paradigms in dealing with Iraq.

The crux of the book is their compelling argument, using the (George W.) Bush Doctrine ("American internationalism"), that the United States should pre-emptively strike Iraq. They fully explain the tenets of the Bush Doctrine, which is a viable model for dealing with threats in the post-9/11 world.

Though the war with Iraq is already underway, do not be dissuaded from reading this work simply for that reason. The Iraqi situation is a real-world case study that helps explain the Bush Doctrine. This new paradigm is being tested right now and will be the method of engagement for US foreign policy for the forseeable future.

This book will give you the back-story. It will delve into the history of our foreign policy in Iraq, the Middle East and the world as a whole. By accurately abridging our foreign policy practices for the past 3 decades it will take you on a ride through three distinct camps of international thinking. Specifically, it will take you through the realist policies of the first president Bush, the liberal approach of president Clinton, and the new president Bush's internationalism.

Though it does paint internationalism as an auspicious policy in light of today's events it nevertheless give you the facts that have brought us to our current situation. If you feeling in the dark or if your protesting in the belief that it's all about oil then you will benefit from the contents of this book. Read it with objectivity and then build a case for you stance from the facts presented here.

I've noticed many Amazon reviewers begin (or end) their reviews explaining why they are uniquely qualified to evaluate an author's work. So I must also say... NO! I'm no expert! I simply bought this book because I sought a reference that was objective and would answer my questions, specifically: is this war truly necessary? My comments to you are: judge for yourself.

The authors did an excellent job 'promoting' action against Iraq because they explained these heinous weapons, Saddam's genocidal attacks, and the splintered UN which he no doubt laughs about. And yes, Kristol and Kaplan talk about Clinton, Bush I and Bush II styles and THAT my friends makes it a more compelling read.

Let's face it: a war in Iraq will probably rid us of Saddam Hussein for good. Kristol and Kaplan do - IMHO - a thorough job telling us why that's a "good thing," and what we can expect afterwards.

David Wurmser was one of the authors of the notorious 1996 report: "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" along with, among others, Richard Perle, Undersecretary of Defense, Douglas Feith, and James Colbert, then of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. In this paper, Wurmser, et. al. characterize Saddam Hussein as a weak leader who should be toppled primarily to hand Iraq over to King Hussein of Jordan, to embarrass and weaken Syria for the benefit of Israel. Here is a quote: "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq--an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right--as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions. . . . " Imagine my surprise to see Wurmser now making Saddam Hussein the main show--the embodiment of evil in the region. He and his colleagues have been plotting the overthrow of Saddam now for more than seven years. They are willing to lie, cheat and steal to achieve this end. Consequently the sanctimonious hypocrisy in this book is astonishing. If the American public only knew how badly they are being served by Wurmser, Perle, Feith and their ilk, the warmongering in Washington might stop. Their contempt for the public and for human life is truly astonishing.

David Wurmser writes a brilliant treatise on how regional competitions, an unguided foreign/national security bureaucracy and a distracted White House came to make the situation with Iraq an intractable one. His book requires an appreciation for the technical aspects of government and the politics of the interagency process. Withstanding that, the book speaks to these points without daunting or loosing the reader. While contemplating some of the darkest hours in Washington policy making, it is laced with a contagious optimism for the future of a country and it's people subjugated by Hussein. This book is worth every dime.

David Wurmser explains that when dealing with a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein diplomacy, sanctions, and UN pressure are essentially ineffective. Saddam will pursue the development of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc. at all costs. If it means his people starve and go without medication for sicknesses he will let that happen. Saddam is out to secure his own power in his country and the Middle East and will stop at nothing to do so. Richard Perle is one of the most logical and straight forward experts you will ever find on Iraq. We live in an unfortuante world where military action, violence, and force are sometimes necessary to secure peace and freedom. Many people don't understand that. They think asking for peace will bring peace. It simply does not work that way with dictators like Saddam Hussein. Wurmser points this out and backs it up. If you want to know why it's necessary to remove Saddam with force read this for the answers. People are quick to call men like Perle and Wurmer war mongers but they actaully desire peace as much or more than the people calling them that. However, they are educated enough and have enough vision to see that peace comes at a price when dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein.

The United Nations' recent "inspection" of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program makes it painfully clear little has changed since Scott Ritter resigned from UNSCOM in 1998. The UN and the United States seem stuck in a time warp, which Ritter predicted in Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem--Once and for All.

The weakest aspect of Endgame, ironically, is Ritter's envisioned endgame; his proposed detente seems unrealistic and contradictory. Even so the book makes for a good and relevant read. The author isn't anyone to be taken lightly on the subjects of Iraq, disarmament, Saddam Hussein, and war and peace. Given the recent demonization of Ritter because of his anti-war stance, it is good to remember this retired Marine intelligence officer almost lost his life while he served as an arms inspector (in fact, the passage where an Iraqi soldier prepares to shoot Ritter is stunning). Ritter's proposed solution to the Iraq question is flawed but this is a man of unquestioned patriotism, humanity and integrity. His opinions obviously were shaped by first-hand observations of the suffering of the Iraqi people under both Saddam and the UN sanctions. Ritter also seems to have been nauseated by several U.N. and U.S. officials, particularly former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The author does acknowledge the heroes who managed to emerge. Among these brave souls are former United States ambassaor to the UN Bill Richardson, who recently was elected governor of New Mexico. Another admirable character is former UNSCOM head Richard Butler, who has reached completely different conclusions from Ritter about how to deal with Iraq.

Ritter provides great insight into the tribalism and rank gangsterism that propelled Saddam to power and keeps him there. He paints a damning portrait of a dictator who uses rape as a weapon of mass personal destruction. In one particularly memorable scene, an angry Saddam torches his son's garage and 12 sports cars. Iraq's concealment policy seems a logical extension of such insanity although, as Ritter notes, the inspectors mostly found incriminating documents but few prohibited weapons.

Given the fraud and deceit Ritter details it is inexplicable that the author recommends dropping economic sanctions if Saddam promises not to develop weapons of mass destruction. Further, Ritter's suggestion that Iraq be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear program borders on the bizarre. The author never explains why a regime with a history of compulsive lying should be trusted. Yet Ritter also makes a compelling case that war will not solve anything in Iraq, and the ultimate goal there should be disarmament. Saddam truly is just one part of the Iraq problem.

A word of caution is in order to the reader: Ritter has a military man's love of acronyms and there is no glossary for quick reference to all the letters strung together. On the other hand, he predictably likes maps and these prove useful. Another strong point is that the author manages to keep his personal role proportional to what happened.

As war drums once again sound along the Potomac, this is a good book to read. Ritter's proposed solutions clearly will not work, but he explains why war won't, either.

It isn't often that we get a "I was there" book which truly focuses on what happened "there" more than on the conflicts between the author and others - if someone thinks that the press gave him or her short shrift during a war or other intense, highly publicized endeavor, a book usually results. But Scott Ritter troubles to walk us through the labyrinthine maze of Iraqi power politics, with special attention to how Saddam Hussein got to be sole ruler of Iraq, and how Saddam manages to stay astride that tiger today. Most of "Endgame" is an extremely erudite discussion of Saddam Hussein's rise to power up to and during the UNSCOM weapons inspections of which Ritter was a part.

And Ritter succeeds in making his case, that decision makers in Washington and New York (the UN) were simply dropping the ball, failing to act resolutely when it was needed and only applying pressure when it would have a minimal effect on Iraqi leadership.

I'm more than a little puzzled at the sniping at Ritter from other Amazon.com reviewers - certainly if Ritter was pursuing a self-serving agenda while at UNSCOM, the thing for him to do would be to not rock the Clinton administration's boat on Iraqi policy, to play the game along with everyone else in hopes of getting Richard Butler's job down the line. Simply nodding stupidly and not pushing the Iraqis into allowing real inspections would have been easier than what Ritter actually did, as would relying on inadequate intelligence instead of working out deals with the Israelis for better overheads and human source intel (one of the major criticisms leveled at Ritter was that he was too "cozy" with the Israelis and did not clear his contacts with them with Washington - here, the critics conveniently forget that Scott Ritter was NOT an American officer but an employee of the United Nations. Also, the evidence, not just in Ritter's book but in other well-researched accounts of the UNSCOM work, indicates that Ritter acted well within his duties).

Ritter, in my opinion, not only vindicated himself but in his book did so in a way that allows the reader to judge intelligently whether or not to agree with Ritter and leaves the reader much better informed about the entire issue of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction than if the reader relied on reports from television or the popular news magazines.

I have some problems with Ritter's final chapter, specifically with the course of action he recommends that we take to deal with Saddam - but I certainly agree with him that the sanctions do nothing but starve and kill children and cement Saddam's status with his people, and should be stopped as soon as possible.

I recommend Ritter's book as essential to a complete understanding of UNSCOM - together, of course, with other readings such as Andrew and Patrick Cockburn's "From the Ashes," an unsparingly critical but intensively detailed look at Saddam's survival of what should have been an ignimonious and crushing defeat in 1991, and all that has passed since then in that part of the world.

I am at pains to try and figure out which Scott Ritter book Mr. Barron actually read: the real one, or the one seen through Mr. Barron's myopic view of the world. Indeed, even a cursory examination reveals that Ritter's proposed solution to the Iraq problem is the exact opposite of what Mr. Barron contends: Ritter advocates -- in light of certain moral, political, and strategic realities -- a route of diplomatic engagement with Saddam Hussein's regime, a stance which once again has made him the target of various segments of the foreign policy elite.

As for the book itself, readers will be surprised to learn that this is not a "kiss and tell" book consumed with CIA manipulations, insider accounts of derring-do and so forth. True, a good part of that story is here -- in particular, a well-written account of a dangerous attempt to inspect Iraq's Special Security Organization. More importantly, however, Ritter provides a much needed and incisive chronicle of how Iraq really works, from tribal feuds to nearly unspeakable violence, doing so with a scholar's attention to detail and decisive moments. Agree with his conclusions or not, he paints a sophisticated picture of Iraq and how, perhaps, we might bring the country and its people back into the family of nations.

Regional experts, military professionals and even those with a passing interest in today's headlines should read this book (and believe me, you'll wind up saying, "This Marine can really write!"). Scott Ritter has once again done something that is so lacking in today's society: he has told it as he saw it.

I read this book at a friend's house, and I must say that I found it wholly lacking in the sort of rigorous logic that you might expect from a book with its title. Many of the arguments selected incomplete data to support points which seemed transparently biased. I had been hoping to get an even-handed view of the subject, but to no avail. If you are looking to support a pre-determined point of view with half-baked facts and emotional assertions, then get this book. For everything else, look elsewhere!

I purchased this book because I am a centrist on the war issue and was hoping it would present logical and cogent reasons against war with Iraq. While I was eager for persuasive and compelling arguments I was also expecting that the book would take a fair-minded look at BOTH sides of the issue and then reason convincingly against a war with Iraq.
It didn't do that, instead it took every pro-Iraqi statement as being the gospel truth while everything that was damaging to Saddam was relegated as disinformation. After reading the book I felt that I had just read a propaganda guide put out but the Iraqi Information services.

Where is the evenhandedness that is fundamental to deliberations of this magnitude?

Should not the specifics, both pro and con, be presented? Of course they should, but the book neglects this miserably.

I was also looking for a synoptic background of Saddam Hussein and his rise to power. Devoid of crucial background information, the reader is ill-equipped to make any deductions about what potential action(s) should or should not be taken. Remember the old saying: Those who do not know history are apt to repeat it. Regrettably the author believes that there is no relevance in the history of Iraq.
I was enthusiastic that the book would delineate how Saddam Hussein has changed and why he can be trusted in the future? In other words, what should be done about Saddam's reign of terror and mass genocide he has performed on people both before and after the Gulf war? It is of somber concern to me that the Dove's do not exhibit compassion for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been tortured, raped and executed by Saddam's regime!
Everyone is aware that the most liberal/anti-war organizations have written some of the most damning reports on this regime, for example Max Van der Stoel's who was the UN's special rapportuer for human rights in Iraq, reported to the United Nations that the brutality of the Iraqi regime was "of exceptionally grave character - so grave that it has few parallels in the years that have passed since the Second World War."

While the book has many weaknesses one of the worst sections (considering whom it was written by) is the assertion that a country does not have authority to bomb another country. The authors strangely back this up by using UNSCR 1411 and then seconded that with Article 51. While this is an interesting and novel way to say this war is illegal it would be easier to quote UN Charter Article 2 (paragraph 3 and 4) for this certainly has more weight than the authors argument. But even if you combine those two arguments together there appears to be some legally convincing reasons for war such as:

1925 and 1949 Geneva Convections (Treatment of prisoners, use of WMD, purposeful targeting of civilians)
Violation of the Vienna Conventions of diplomatic and consular relations
Violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty of 1993
Violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention
Violation of UNSCR 687

The above are 6 WELL KNOWN arguments for a LEGAL war; the book should have given at minimum a cursory attempt to discredit one of them!

To be fair the book did tackle one known argument for a legal war it is what is known as the legal principle of "anticipatory self-defense". It stated however that this has never been endorsed.

OH REALLY, I guess the authors hope that you have had you head in the sand for the last 41 years. Just a few examples:

1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
1981 Strike on Iraq's Osiraq Nuclear reactor
1982 Exclusion zone around Falkland Islands
1982 Sweden's use of force declaration against submarines found within 12 miles of its shores.
1998 strike on Afghanistan
1998 strike on Sudan
1999 Action in Kosovo

The most farcical part of the book is the claim that Saddam does not have the ability to build a nuclear weapon. The authors simply disregard 98% of the Untied Nations reports. They also overlook all of the illegal shipments of banned weapons, weapon parts, and logistical components that have been seized going into Iraq since 1991. The proof is extant; and well documented. In 1990 Saddam had a nuclear weapon sans the fizzle material. The vast preponderance of authorities agrees that Saddam will have nuclear capability in 3 - 5 years. But I guess these geniuses know more than anybody else.

The facts are clear that Saddam made more than $2 billion in 2001 smuggling oil out of the country. (Please refer to Petroleum Intelligence Weekly for more statistics) If you add up all the money he has made smuggling over the last 10 years, you know where he gets the money to build his WMD. Plus what little is left over he can add to his collection of billion dollar palatial estates. (Just imagine if he took this money and helped his citizens with it. Well, that would be the RIGHT thing to do wouldn't it)

I still feel uneasy about this war, but the more Anti-war books that I read with their simplistic argumentation, radical leftist interpretations of the facts, and general deception about the substance, I fell that I am becoming more hawkish every day.

For those yearning for an evenhanded treatment of facts about this multifaceted and difficult issue this is NOT your book. This book is a one-sided polemic that will only gratify those whom are dogmatically Anti-War.

Why two stars then? Not for content, but rather sympathy; for trying what might be impossible.

AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ: AN ANTI-WAR PRIMER is a frightening description of the Bush Administration's plan for world dominance. It points out that there is no tangible proof of any connection between Saddam and bin Laden, and that "weapons of mass destruction" is not at the root of the war. Rather, the Bush Administration is interested in controlling the second largest oil reserve in the world, which Iraq just happens to sit on top of. Iraq is also a good target in this plan because it is just a defenseless country, thus sending a graphic message to the rest of the world of our military capabilities. Yet another advantage of attacking Iraq is the fact that it lies at the center of the Middle East, providing the US a good opportunity to weaken the region's stability even further and establish a USA presence that can later be expanded.

AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ: AN ANTI-WAR PRIMER also provides the chilling account of US crackdown on civil liberties in the name of "protecting our freedoms," and how other countries have followed suit. It also notes that terrorism increased during the preparation for war with Iraq, and that it most likely will increase if we *do* go to war (note: this book was published a few weeks before the outbreak of the war).

Most frightening of all is the revelation that the war with Iraq is just phase one in the Bush Administration's quest for global dominance. The idea is to scare the rest of the world, to let them know that the US has a right to attack whenever they feel, without sufficient proof of any wrong doing - this is called a "preventive attack" (meaning the USA can attack any country it *thinks* may be planning to attack us, no proof is needed). As this book points out, the great irony is that while the official justification for the war with Iraq is to do away with their "weapons of mass destruction," the war with Iraq will only increase weapons of mass destruction because other countries are now afraid of the USA and will want to stock up protection to defend themselves against the USA. We can strike whenever we want (boy, I love how those euphamisms make things so much prettier than they really are: unions strike; the US military is *bombing* and killing), so countries will need to protect themselves.

I picked up AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ: AN ANTI-WAR PRIMER hoping to learn more about what is really going on. I found what is in these pages to be so horrifying that I almost wish I hadn't read it. I now understand why so many Americans believe that the war is about protecting our freedoms: it's too frightening to realize that we have a government that is lying to us this much and is willing - and able - to sacrifice innocent human lives in the quest for money.

This book probably would have been better if it wasn't the 3rd book i've read about 2 girls trying to escape communism or poverty. It's the same story one of the parents are in danger of being kiled by the government takes off leaves the family the family then meet him in an isolated village of some sort they then find out the town is in danger so they move across a border riskking their lives yet again and in the end they move to a stable home where they live hapily ever after.

Have i missed anything out and i didn't even finish it so please tell me if i'm wrong

Kiss the Dust by Elizabeth Laird really catches your attention. The book is about a Kurdish girl and her family who must flee their home because of their religion. The family endures many hardships on their journey to safety and freedom. The family must move from their home in Sulaimaniya, Iraq to the mountains of Kurdistan. From their they are driven over the border in to Iran where they must live in horrible refugee camps. Will Tara and her family ever find a place they can really call home ever again?

I thought KISS THE DUST was a very good book. It's about a girl
named TARA and her family. One afternoon a soldier comes to their house. TARA's father was sick. The solier tells BABA the police are looking for him.SO they have to move away from their home.Most of the book is about them moving around the world and their problems.

A favorite "bad boy" of American belles lettres, Norman Mailer has kept his finger on the pulse of America since 1948, with the publication of "The Naked and the Dead." He's always had an attraction to our perversities and anxieties, and over the decades has been captivated by the question, "Why?" Why are we in Vietnam? Why are we obsessed with violence? Why is democracy so fragile? Never one to shrink from, or even start a fight, he does have a strong sense of justice and social rightness that is perhaps reflected in his (I think) philosophical neologism, Left-Conservatism. In "Why Are We at War?" he makes the case for the roles of paradigm shifts, existential hemorrhage, and national hubris behind our reactions to 9-11, Iraq, and American destiny.

Paradigm shift and existential hemorrhage: The book begins and ends with a partial transcript of a discussion between Mailer and Dotson Rader about the events of 9-11. Some politicians said, in the immediate aftermath of the World Trade Center bombing and immediately before the invasion of Iraq that we need to examine why we, as a country are so hated. We all agree that our first reaction is bafflement. That it is inconceivable to us that any country or people could doubt our nobility of purpose or purity of motive. That the granting of democracy to other people is the manifestation of God's work in the universe. And that to question any of these notions is heretical AND unpatriotic. But by posing the questions, we become agitated and distressed to glimpse the issues from a non-American center and perspective. When we come to view a tiny corner of the terrorists perspective, what happens is NOT a state of sympathy, but rather an appreciation of the possible endlessness of combat with true believers who are bent on destruction and murder as a tactical approach to cultural war. Where, from Mailer's viewpoint, does this get us?

Well, one the one hand, if we accept that we are up against a philosophy at complete odds with ours, where almost a billion people have sympathy to some degree with that philosophy, and where there is some justification for anti-Western and anti-corporate sentiment, then we have a lot of bridge-building to do. To foster basic social economic, and legal justice. To stop supporting corrupt, tyranical governments which use our conflicts as screens to deflect attention from their own severe shortcomings. To support more moderate, mainstream Muslims who have philosophies very different from the more extreme clerics and terrorist theorists.

Hubris: On the other hand, we can take the current set of conflicts as signs of a few evil (an important buzz-word in this book) individuals' taking arms against God's people. Mailer examines the evolution of neo-conservative political philosophy and his vision sounds like an unholy melding of the worst Manifest Destiny with Christian Triumphalism and the British Raj. Endless conflict supporting American imperial destiny and a vision of world dominance for the betterment of mankind. Mailer's attitude toward George W. is curious and very interesting: "I would guess that George W. Bush can tell when one of his experts knows what he's talking about and when he's only pretending he knows. . . . Clinton. . . was always the brightest guy in his circle. Whereas Bush is smart enough to know that he couldn't possibly do the same or the country would be run by morons." While Mailer believes that Bush is driven by true idealism, he tempers the notion with caveats. That corporate-driven greed corrupts the philosophy. That plutocracy diminishes the quality of democracy and brings into greater question the motives of its rulers. That the administration may be trying in good faith to save the world. But, paraphrasing Kierkegard, "When we think we are nearest to God, we could be assisting the Devil." In the words of Robert Byrd, "I must truly question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country.'"

Ultimately, neither the neo-cons nor the terrorists, to Mailer, have God's ear. When the "American Conservative" interviewer asks him, "If ours is indeed a post-Christian society in which materialism is the highest good and it takes a faith to fight a faith, are they not better suited to combat us?", he replies, "No, . . . this war is so unbalanced in so many ways, so much power on one side, so much true hatred on the other, so much technology for us, so much potential terrorism on the other, that the damages cannot be estimated." What is terribly on the line here is democratic process itslef, the slow trade of personal liberties for shrinking notions of individual security. Never expect an organization established to collect intelligence and provide security to simultaneously safeguard free expression and free movement.

This is a rich little book that will, I hope, inspire many to further question the motives and tactics of of our society, motivated by love for the society and its institutions, and believeing that we are a beacon for hope and freedom in the world.

I am not necessarily a fan of Norman Mailer. I recall Dick Cavett once saying that when Norman Mailer sits down, he needs two chairs, one for him, and one for his ego. That said, I thought this book, which should be more rightly seen as a pamphlet, had enough thought provoking, and rationally based arguments to enlighten the average citizen on why the U.S. is in Iraq. Unlike some other talking heads, the author makes it clear that these are his opinions and not based on unstated facts.

The author notes the influence of radical conservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and others in the government who subscribe to the concept of an American empire, which is, he believes, the reason for war. This decision to extend the American authority is either due to perverse greed, or an honest belief that America must save the world. Mailer also postulates that even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, President Bush seems to have reasoned that,
If terrorism is evil and must be destroyed, and
Saddam Hussein is evil, then
Saddam Hussein must be destroyed. Ergo, we fight in Iraq because of 9/11.

Frankly, the belief that this may be the operative syllogism (despite the obvious logical flaws and policy inconsistencies with other state leaders) makes more sense then any other reason for why Mr. Bush believes we should be in Iraq (it's the same theme of a popular country song and to many letters to the editor favoring the war). That Bush continually changes stories on his stated reasons for entering war, and other evidence to support him does not appear to exist, gives credence to Mailer's conclusions.

Mailer's point on American's anger toward immigration was under developed. To the question of why others in the world hate us so, consider how offensive are some long time Americans to immigrants, whom they fear will change the nature of this country. English only laws are one symptom of this hysteria. Also remember the anger expressed towards Japan when some thought that country seemed intent on buying what they did not win in war. This is similar (right or wrong) to what other cultures feel toward the infiltration of American culture in their land. Now multiply this fear several times because the U.S. also has the military and economic might to force an influence where it may not be fully desired.

Mailer does fill the rest of his book with random thoughts on various issues, some relevant, others less so, but it's a quick read and does not do damage to his central thesis. And despite what one may think about Mailer, he gives every indication that his arguments are based on a sincere desire to help Americans think straight about what is happening around us and to preserve freedom.

Norman Mailer's concerns about American Empire have crossed my mind many times prior to reading this book. He rightly points out that much of our own democracy is being sacrificed in the name of defending freedom and exporting democracy itself to Iraq and other places. He questions the notion that democracy in Iraq [or anywhere else] can be easily established. The sheer hypocracy of Bush's position and the incredulity of former U.S. allies in the righteousness of our cause are convincingly called into question.

It is refreshing to hear someone of Mr. Mailer's stature question the wisdom of the path we appear to be on. There has not been a serious debate about this war in the main-stream press and certainly not in the conservative [self-proclaimed victims of liberal media bias] media.

Yes, there are some strange tangents and flights of fancy that might not have made it through a more carefully edited or researched essay. It seems Mailer decided to put this slim volume out quickly just to expedite getting his thoughts in the public forum. I don't particularly mind the unpolished nature of the book. The message is simply too important to delay!

Probably the only journalist ever to have interviewed Saddam Hussein while stoned on ecstasy--Roberts, that is, not Hussein!--Roberts paints a chilling portrait of an Iraq thirty or so years into the Hussein regime. The book is very funny in parts, but there's terror behind the canvas that Roberts covers with his amusing anecdotes. I found some of the treatment spotty and some jibes needlessly cruel, but on the whole, an entertaining account.

Earnest idealists and humorless conservatives will never get it. The book is screemingly funny, obviously written by a keen student of the tragiocomic human condition. Roberts does a fine job clubbing us over the head with the absurd realities of third world existance (and making us enjoy it), while never letting us forget the underlying human tragedy. Nothing's sacred here, not history, not his host's English skills, not the press corps, not 300 pound gay secret policeman, not George Bush, and certainly not Saddam Hussein. I particularly enjoyed Roberts' hilarious commentary on Saddam Hussein's official biography, his tripped out interview with the demonic dictator poster boy himself, and the bit where he dared the leader of Islamic Jihad to show him exactly, exactly mind you, where it says in the Koran that Israel must be destroyed. I also loved the eerily plausible conspiracy theory where George Bush orchestrated the invasion of Kuwait. On another level I cannot forget the harrowing descriptions of a clandestine trip into the heart of Bagdad in the midst of the Gulf War bombing. The book had me laughing and at the same time educated me a bit about the history of the region. I liked it immensly, but then I'm more cynical then your average third world dictator.

This is one of the best books I have ever read; it made me laugh out loud, it made me cry, and it gave me a far better understanding of the real situation still faced by Iraq. Dr Roberts is like a cross between PJ O'Rourke, John Bierman and Martin Amis, mixing bizarre first-person narrative with historical perspective in a way I found both highly entertaining and richly informative. By providing the background to the ongoing war against Iraq, Roberts forces us to see a bigger picture -- and it is not a pretty one. The reader's sympathies are ultimately with the poor Iraq people who have suffered so terribly at our hands and for no reason other than the crimes of a leader they loathe more -- it seems -- than we do. The vivid accounts of Gulf War action and the dreadful aftermath of the UN embargo rank among the greastest pieces of prose I can think of. I have since read some of this writer's other books and they are all just as good. I am surprised he is not better known.

The subtitle of "The Reckoning" is somewhat misleading, billing itself as being about "Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein," when nearly half of the book's length is devoted to Iraq's history BEFORE "The Butcher of Baghdad" came to power. Nevertheless, it still works quite well as a one volume overview and comes at a very critical time in which the U.S. is again considering military action against the country. It also chillingly portrays the trajedy that has befallen this turbulent country because of its unfortunate history and outlaw leadership.

The book mostly consists of historical accounts drawn from other sources. Author Sandra Mackey did in fact visit Iraq while researching it, but she was very limited in where she could go or who she could talk to. Her first person accounts of Saddam's totalitarian society are brief, but chilling in their implications. Mackey uses them as a backdrop for her straightforward account of Iraqi history from Mesopitamina times until the present. The story is a tragic one, of course, made even more so by the fact that the country enjoyed a brief period of prosperity before Saddam plunged it into the nightmares of the Iran/Iraq war, the Gulf War and internal genocides against the Shia and Kurd populations.

Mackey is a very good writer, and for the most part her prose is crisp and readable. On the downside, she repeats herself a bit too much, and at nearly 400 pages the narrative lags a little at times. Nevertheless, Mackey has provided a valuable service by giving Americans (and other Westerners) the chance to catch up on a subject that seems about to rivet the wrold's attention once again. For that, I give it an enthusiastic recommendation.

In The Reckoning, author Sandra Mackey gives us a historical and current view of the nation of Iraq. By doing so, she points out that any attempt at governance will be met with fierce opposition from diverse groups that were, more or less, randomly placed together.

The book begins with the creation of the state of Iraq, which I found is not an Iraqi creation. The name is not even an Iraqi creation. From the book, the British organized the areas of Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul into what we know of as Iraq. Every leader since the creation of the state has struggled to build a state where all the different groups think of themselves as Iraqi.

Oil made the Iraqi state successful. Saddam Hussein and his party moved in power to benefit from that wealth, but they realized quickly that for them to maintain control, they have to be ruthless. Saddam has a long history of this.

After reading this book, the articles I read in the newspaper and the news segments I see on TV make more sense to me. I would highly recommend reading this book. This is a very enlightening read.

The Reckoning: Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein by Sandra Mackey

This book provides an extremely important ability to understand the dynamics of Iraq, especially related to a war with consequences not limited to Iraq, but to the whole Middle East and may escalate beyond. The authors states "the road to Baghdad must lead through Jerusalem". Because the writing is so good, this is a very readable book.

The scholarship on the history of the region and Islam, and the development of the post WWI state is essential to the understanding of Iraq and the role of Saddam Hussein. The author traces this history and brings it to the present dilemma. This book chronicles Saddam Hussein's well orchestrated control over his country from the time of his accession to today in light of the various ethnic and religious groups and his strong tribal/military strengths. Control was achieved using techniques of a modern state; economic controls, environmental manipulation, genocide, and removal of the dissenting press and religious leaders resulting in lost of an educated population and alternatives for government.

The last chapter is provocative and terrifying. The author makes the case that removing Hussein will not alone solve the major issues, and may escalate the Arab/Israel conflict with the developed world losing essential oil supplies and potentially the elimination of Israel. The case is made that solutions on Palestine must be part of the Iraq policy. One can debate what that policy should be, but the author suggests that the U.S. has behaved at best as naïve and at worst as manipulative and destructive to the Arab world.

The book shows that the U.S. must look beyond the elimination of Hussein to the larger view of the consequences and methods to ensure stability in the region. She questions if a large U.S. (UN) military force in Iraq would ensure oil production, minimize the conflict with Israel, and eventually produce a democratic nation representing the major ethnic religious groups. The author shows that even with a very large police action, these goals may be nearly impossible.

To the world, the only U.S. interest is the strategically important oil and the cruelty of Hussein, who wants to have the military power to protect his position. Without the oil, the brutality would be a minor U.S. concern as it was in the Congo. The book provides a excellent launching pad for the discussion on the long term goals in the region.

Being fond of ancient Sumer in general and the Gilgamesh epic in particular, I found Mr. Silverberg's book a profound disappointment. It appears that the author's intention was to rework the venerable story to remove its fantastic elements. Along the way he practically ignores an interesting milieu, makes the characters boring, and replaces dynamic episodes with confusing ones.

Admittedly, Mr. Silverberg did make an effort to make his characters seem as though they actually are living in a different day and time. However, as historical fiction this book falls flat. (If you want historical fiction set in Sumer check out The Three Brothers of Ur by J.G. Fyson, and forget this book.)

Gilgamesh The King is a thoroughly engrossing retelling of the famous Sumerian myth from the perspective of the figure himself. It creates a plausible blend of superstition, ancient knowledge and characterization as underpinnings of the legend.
In the same way that Mary Stewart's historical tales carry the reader to ancient times through the eyes and thoughts of the main character, Gilgamesh The King brings a profound humanity to such fabled material.

An entertaining spin on the myth of Gilgamesh, by one of our foremost living authors. I have read the original (or a translation, anyway) and it is remarkable how he manages to be so faithful to the tone of the book and yet to shore up an often-fragmentary narrative. Definitely, a must-read.